Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Reviewed a couple of reviews on it. How honest do we want to be? Truth in love. Let's see; from where did the idea arise that it takes a duly ordained priest (laity can't do it) to make the change in the bread/wine?
From Christ and His Apostles.
Two points here. 1) To clear up one matter is that not all Levites could offer sacrifices in Mosaic Law only the sons of Aaron could.Melchizedek (all-spiritual succession) or Levite (physical succession)?
Of course we know it's the first choice. Jesus was of Judah, not Levi; Jesus of the Melchizedek priesthood.
So, from where did the idea that only Levite-type priests (duly ordained) could change the bread/wine?
Aside from itself (RC), which groups does RC view as having duly ordained priests?
EO?
OO?
Lutheran?
Anglican?
Other Protestant?
SDA?
LDS?
EO? Yes
OO? Yes
Lutheran? No
Anglican? No
Other Protestant? No
SDA? No
LDS? No
There are other groups that are recognized having a legitimate or apostolic priesthood and they include the Old Catholics, the Society of St Pius X and the Patriotic Catholic Church in China. There are a few others but I can't think of who they are at this time.
Two points here. 1) To clear up one matter is that not all Levites could offer sacrifices in Mosaic Law only the sons of Aaron could.
2) Being of the order of Melchizedek does not say that all could offer sacrifice. Only Christ is of the order of Melchizedek and no other. Only Christ can offer sacrifice in the New Covenant and that sacrifice was Himself. So in Christ we have both High Priest and Sacrifice.
What priests do in the Catholic Church is "re-present" the sacrifice of Christ. Not a new sacrifice but the same sacrifice that is Christ. -snip- "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."188
Now why does it require an ordained man to offer the Eucharist? Because Jesus set it up that way. There are certain graces that he gave only to the Apostles and no one else. They where primarily the offering of the Sacraments. These Apostles then ordained other men who received these graces as we can see in the ordaining of Matthias to replace Judas, the ordaining the 7 "deacons", the ordaining of Barnabas and Paul as Apostles to the gentiles, the mandates given by Paul to Timothy in determining who was and was not worthy of being a bishop or deacon, etc.
This fact can be seen just by reading history and see how this passed on from one generation to the next.
I didn't say it did. Heb. 8 is an example of typology regarding OT sacrifices being inferior to NT.Sorry to interrupt, but if you mean Hebrews 8 speaks of Adam being an antetype of Jesus, I have to tell you it isn't anywhere mentioned in Hebrews 8 in the KJV. I haven't checked the Douay-Rheims.
That's fine. But types are always inferior in OT vs. NT. And none of my prior argument violates grammar and figure of speech of the text. Your response confronts neither the Biblical text in question, nor the text of what I wrote. To refute what I said, one has to explain why it's ok to understand the NT bread of life be of inferior origin to the OT manna when no other Biblical type between OT and NT have that quality. Not to mention the whole part of the audiences' reaction....Anyway, superiority does not abridge or augment the rules of speech
The reason why the Catholic church does not view the Lutheran church having a legitimate priesthood is that there was no bishops involved in the separation. Only bishops have the grace to give holy orders. Priests don't have this grace.So, the RC (and presumably EO) view is when an Anglican or Lutheran priest pronounces the words, nothing changes in the bread/wine (no real presence). But when an EO or RC priest pronounces the words, the bread/wine do change (real presence).
Which priesthood is which group a part of in RC's view?
What do you make of the red heifer sacrifice (Num. 19)?
All Christians are of the new priesthood but there is a difference between the laity and the ordained priesthood much like in the Old Covenant you have the tribe of Levite being the tribe of priests yet they were not ordained priests as the sons of Aaron where. There was a difference in rolls and reponsibilities which Paul very much spoke of.So when Peter calls Christians of the priesthood, to what does he refer?
Because he was speaking to the church of Corinth. You don't think that the bishop of Corinth didn't read the letter first?What do you make of this?
1 Cor. 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
v23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
v33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
If your view is correct, then why wouldn't Paul make those instructions to NT priests, rather than NT Christians (brethren)?
You need to read the pastoral letters SU.Alternatively, we can read Paul instructing Christians (brethren) in this matter without a clergy/laity type split. This instruction then retains Peter's and John's transmittal of gospel truth about the priesthood of believers.
The reason why the Catholic church does not view the Lutheran church having a legitimate priesthood is that there was no bishops involved in the separation. Only bishops have the grace to give holy orders. Priests don't have this grace.
With the Anglican church it is different though. There was bishops involved in the schism, but when the separation occurred the theology changed significantly concerning Holy Orders and the Eucharist and due to this it is not certain that the Apostolic succession continued in the Anglican communion.
This is the reason when a Lutheran minister or Anglican minister decides to swim the Tiber and they want to continue as a minister they must receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders to become a priest.
The reason why the Catholic church does not view the Lutheran church having a legitimate priesthood is that there was no bishops involved in the separation. Only bishops have the grace to give holy orders. Priests don't have this grace.
With the Anglican church it is different though. There was bishops involved in the schism, but when the separation occurred the theology changed significantly concerning Holy Orders and the Eucharist and due to this it is not certain that the Apostolic succession continued in the Anglican communion.
This is the reason when a Lutheran minister or Anglican minister decides to swim the Tiber and they want to continue as a minister they must receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders to become a priest.
What I read in Numbers 19 is that Eleazer the son of Aaron precided over the sacrifice. So you may have to clarify what you are referring to.
-snip-
Because he was speaking to the church of Corinth. You don't think that the bishop of Corinth didn't read the letter first?
You need to read the pastoral letters SU.
Josiah said:
Okay.
1. So, how does your "interpretation" of John 6 support the new Eucharistic Dogma of the RCC of "transubstantiation?" How does it support the RCC and Zwinglian Protestant hermeneutic that the words of Jesus should be taken in a split, arbitrary "half literal, half symbolic" manner, that Jesus frequently did not mean what He said?
2. And how does your admission that no one could have understood Jesus to be speaking about the Eucharist (it didn't exist yet) substantiate that He was?
3. Luther did not use the "Aristotelian concept" of anything. You are confusing Luther with your denomination.
4. Luther's use of the word "with" a very few times was his personal, non dogmatic manner of not denying what Jesus specifically and literally said and Paul by inspiration penned. Lutherans embrace Real Presence but not - as dogma - any limitations on such or medieval "scholastic" attempts to submit the view to long abandoned pagan theories and pre-science concepts. Lutherans accept what Jesus said and Paul penned - nothing more, nothing less. We find no reason to dogmatically deny what Jesus said or Paul penned, and no reason to do so by embracing such pagan theories.
CJ, what about his usage of "under" and "in" in his catechisms?
In the large catechism when discussing "What the Eucharist is", Luther states that : It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink.
In his small catechism he says that it is: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
.
Obviously he is not using these words in their natural form
Luther was using these words "in" and "under" in a metaphysical sense or ahem a philosophical sense.
Jesus only states that this is My Body and this is My Blood.
Any comment on RC's view---when the Lutheran minister speaks the words, there's no change, but when an RC speaks the words, there is a change. Doesn't RC teach communion as a sacrifice, as the efficacy of the cross being imparted, hence RC views Lutherans as "make believers", as no real presence? How would you put it?
I think that the church for the most part takes a neutral position upon this when it comes to Lutheran and traditional Anglican Eucharist. Why? I think it falls to they are not sure, but lean toward hoping it is valid and assuming that the presence of Christ is there in their Eucharist. Where it becomes an issue is only when a Lutheran or Anglican priest/minister converts to Catholicism and want to remain in the priesthood. At this point the Church, if it is decided by the Vatican to give them an exception, will give them the Sacrament of Holy Orders.Not seeing the answer. Of which priesthood is RC and of which priesthood is Lutherans?
Any comment on RC's view---when the Lutheran minister speaks the words, there's no change, but when an RC speaks the words, there is a change. Doesn't RC teach communion as a sacrifice, as the efficacy of the cross being imparted, hence RC views Lutherans as "make believers", as no real presence? How would you put it?
I don't see your point here that contradicts what I said originally. Can you go in a little more detail where I am wrong here?I thought you liked the septuagint?
19:3 And thou shalt give her to Eleazar the priest; and they shall bring her out of the camp into a clean place, and shall kill her before his face.
And ECFs?
Now what do you suppose this to be a type of, that a command was given to Israel, that men of the greatest wickedness15411541 Literally, “men in whom sins are perfect.” Of this, and much more that follows, no mention is made in Scripture. should offer a heifer, and slay and burn it,
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
But a different thread (and not to say I agree with Barnabas' interpretation).
I didn't say anywhere in my post that the letter was written to the bishop alone. The point I made is that the bishop most probably read the letter first and was probably the person that read the letter to his congregation. So I am not sure what you are accusing me of?1 Cor. 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
You called to be a saint too? Call upon Jesus Christ our Lord? Sure. But to your point, no, the letter is not addressed to a single bishop.
11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
Again, the word brethren, not even elder, let alone priest.
v23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
Addressed to the brethren. Not to a NT priest so-called. Hence Peter says,
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
You also?
I didn't say he did did I? Unlike most other protestants and their children churches at least Luther did not deny the Dogma of Real Presence for which I give him credit and so does our current pope.He's not dogmatically denying what Jesus said as God and what Paul penned by divine inspiration - both spoke of bread and wine AFTER the consecration.
Do not realize that what you just wrote is a philosophical comment?The comment does not mean location or any other indication, only that while we can sense the bread and wine (again, he's not dogmatically denying what the Eucharistic texts all so very clearly and repeatedly state), he's simply saying MORE is there.
And "in" and "under" being used in a way that they are not normally used.Yes, he is. Bread = bread. Wine = wine.
But one cannot deny that he is interpreting the texts in a way that they have not been done before. Like I said, I haven't read any ECF using the same terminology as Luther used. I could be wrong I admit for I have obviously not read all writings by ECFs so if you do have an example I would like to see it.In neither. The bread and wine and Blood and Body are all there. He's not joining the modern RCC or Zwinglian Protestants in dogmatically denying anything in the texts or in a split "half is, half isn't" arbitrary hermeneutic of the Eucharistic texts.
Well he sure is using them in a philosophical method. I think I can safely say that Lutherans don't consume on Sundays a Eucharistic form of meatloaf or sandwich, thus Luther is using them in a metaphysical way.Nor are "in" and "under" precise and technically philosophical terms, nor did he explain such in terms of any prescience theory or philosophical concept of any pagan - living or dead.
Jesus also calls Himself the "Bread from Heaven" before the Lord's Supper and His death.1. He also says this is wine.... Paul mentions the bread and wine far more AFTER the consecration than before.
Didn't say Luther did. It is obvious that Luther did not believe in the current Doctrine of the Catholic Church and rejected it for his own personal interpretation of those passages in Scripture.2. Where does He state that anything, anywhere, at any time undergoes a "transubstantiation" leaving behind Aristotelian Accidents? Where does He use the word "change" in any Eucharistic texts? See point # 3.
"swim the Tiber" is a phrase meaning joining the Catholic church.
Do not realize that what you just wrote is a philosophical comment?
And "in" and "under" being used in a way that they are not normally used.
Jesus also calls Himself the "Bread from Heaven" before the Lord's Supper and His death.
It is obvious that Luther did not believe in the current Doctrine of the Catholic Church .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?